4 ms·

Quick question, is the apache license really the most relevant for a dataset? Does that license apply? I ask only because I'm planning on doing something simil

• teachingaway 12y ago
  If the dataset comes from the Gov't (e.g., Freedom of Info Act), one might argue that its public domain data. If its public domain, then slapping a license on it doesn't change anything. If its not public domain, and you want people to use it fairly freely, Apache seems like a good license. Disclaimer: i haven't thought about this very carefully before posting. Could be wrong. One thing I do know is that @copiesofcopies is a former EFF guy that knows open source licensing. Ask him!
  • thewopr 12y ago
    Yeah, I would tend to agree with this. These data are derived from work originally done by the U.S. federal government. If they had chosen to make it freely available without a FOIA, public domain would have applied. I don't think having it being a result of a FOIA changes anything.
    • anigbrowl 12y ago
      Correct. If it comes from the government it's automatically public domain, and according to the repo description the NYT is just sharing what the government provided. NYT is getting very good at the digital journalism approach, I'm pleasantly surprised to see them using Github for this.
• pavpanchekha 12y ago
  Roughly (I'm not a lawyer) data by itself is not copyright-able, but the organization and selection of data is, so most datasets do, in fact, have to come with a license to be usable.
• rpedela 12y ago
  Apache is probably okay for data, but I would recommend Open Data Commons or Creative Commons licenses. http://opendefinition.org/licenses/ http://opendefinition.org/licenses/
• nightpool 12y ago
  IANAL, but I'm not actually sure datasets like these CAN be copyrighted. Copyright rewards "original creative expression", (Feist v. Rural Telephone Service) not just effort, and I know things like phone books and other databases aren't protected by copyright. Generally, compilation protection is limited to things like charts and graphs, were the author has actually shown creative input into how the data is presented or displayed. EDIT: But just to be sure, I would recommend something is well understood and is aimed towards a general usage, such as a Creative Commons license of your choice http://creativecommons.org/choose/ http://creativecommons.org/choose/
  • nroach 12y ago
    The leading case on this is Feist, a telephone book case. http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm As an interesting note, the phone company had been introducing fake listings: "Four of these were fictitious listings that Rural had inserted into its directory to detect copying." For copyright, originality is a constitutional requirement and copyright cannot attach to a bare compilation of known facts. However, "if the compilation author clothes facts with an original collocation of words, he or she may be able to claim a copyright in this written expression." The court held that "the names, towns, and telephone numbers copied by Feist were not original to Rural and therefore were not protected by the copyright in Rural's combined white and yellow pages directory. As a constitutional matter, copyright protects only those constituent elements of a work that possess more than a de minimis quantum of creativity."
    • thewopr 12y ago
      I wonder where the de minimis line gets drawn. I suppose it's like pornography, "I know it when I see it" kind of thing.